D&D General Generic: is it Good or Bad?

[Laurefindel]

Yes, generic is good, if only as a base to compare products that aren't.

A product does not need to be extraordinary to be top notch quality. Then it becomes strong because of its product value, not the size of its niche, or how it re-invents the world (literally, in the case of a campaign setting).

 

[Blue]

Give me context.

A new generic setting? Double plus ungood.

A new generic set of monsters that can fit into any campaign? Hey, that's got some use.

One of the things I love about Eberron is how it upended the generic view of the races. In general, I prefer non-generic. But non-generic can also be too specific to be useful to me. So it's all about context.

 

[OB1]

I'd say it's neither good or bad, it's just generic!

 

[Lanefan]

My reaction to seeing "generic" is usually positive, mainly because when it comes to RPGs I equate "generic" with "adaptable", and I adapt pretty much everything I use. The less generic (or more specific) a product is, the more work I usually have to do in order to to beat it into being what I want.

So, for example, if someone comes out with a self-described generic setting I'll be far more likely to give it a look than I will any sort of specialized setting, as I'm far more likely to be able to make some use of it. Generic adventure modules, even more so!

 

[Beleriphon]

Name a setting or two of the type you mean, so that I can understand more clearly, please.

In a lot of ways early Discworld novels were pretty generic fantasy. It was funny, so being generic helped with the humour in a lot of ways because it satirized fantasy novels in general. I think fiction suffers from this more so than RPGs, because the fiction needs to differentiate itself strongly from other stories in the same genre otherwise why bother with one book over another? I'm pretty sure there's a generic female teen heroine novel plot generater out there somewhere.

For RPG products Alternity's original campaign setting material (that is to say the default stuff) is relatively generic sci-fi material. Its intentional of course, which is fine for a sci-fi RPG that hasn't tied itself to a specific setting. Later setting material is less generic which is helpful, because I'm buying because I want that particular version of sci-fi. Green Ronin's Freedomverse is a generic superhero setting, but I like it because feels like Marvel or DC Comics without being attached to either of them, however other than set dressing there isn't much that makes the Freedomverse different than DC or Marvel in kind of thematic or functional way.

As for generic setting material I'd generally attribute it to a lack of ideas on the part of the author (I'm guilty of this) or wanting to cover as many tropes as possible to cast as wide a net as possible (most publishers like WotC).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lately (and, at my age, that means, 'sometime in the preceding decade'), I've heard 'agnostic' used like 'generic.' This supplement is "system agnostic" or "edition agnostic" or "setting agnostic."

While, of course, agnostic in English refers to a middling-undecided position on the issue of belief in a deity, it's roots, a- + gnosis, interestingly, simply mean "no knowledge."

 

[Leatherhead]

I consider generic to be like a tuna fish sandwich:

I'm going to eat it if it's there, but I ain't going out of my way to get one.

 

[Shiroiken]

I mostly using the word differently than others, including the OP. To me generic means that it functions well in pretty much any campaign. Things like the Artificer, however, seem to be fairly setting specific, and may not adapt over to other settings as easily. While I like having specific things... it pretty much only works for MY settings (same for everyone else). This means that generic things are more useful for more groups, and thus better overall (outside of a specific book dedicated to such things, like a setting book).

 

[Anoth]

As a person that hates name brands, generic sounds pretty good. Now off to play d&d the worlds most well know tabletop rpg owned by Hasbro.

 

[Charlaquin]

It depends, but I went with “good” because I’m generally more likely to adapt “generic” material to my own settings than I am specific content.